|
|
User Controls
|
New User
|
Login
|
Edit/View My Profile
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac
|
Articles
|
Forums
|
Links
|
News
|
News Search
|
Reviews
|
|
|
|
News Centers
|
Windows/Microsoft
|
DVD
|
ActiveHardware
|
Xbox
|
MaINTosh
|
News Search
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats
|
The Lobby
|
Special Events Room
|
Developer's Lounge
|
XBox Chat
|
|
|
|
FAQ's
|
Windows 98/98 SE
|
Windows 2000
|
Windows Me
|
Windows "Whistler" XP
|
Windows CE
|
Internet Explorer 6
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Xbox
|
DirectX
|
DVD's
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips
|
Registry Tips
|
Windows 95/98
|
Windows 2000
|
Internet Explorer 4
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Windows NT Tips
|
Program Tips
|
Easter Eggs
|
Hardware
|
DVD
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews
|
Applications
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002
|
|
Hardware
|
Intel Personal Audio Player
3000
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse
Explorer
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info
|
About This Site
|
Affiliates
|
ANet Forums
|
Contact Us
|
Default Home Page
|
Link To Us
|
Links
|
Member Pages
|
Site Search
|
Awards
|
|
|
|
Credits
©1997/2004, Active Network. All
Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by
Designer Dream. Content
written by the Active Network team. Please click
here for full terms of
use and restrictions or read our
Privacy Statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time:
08:26 EST/13:26 GMT | News Source:
E-Mail |
Posted By: Chris Hedlund |
Software giant Microsoft is facing serious growing threats to its monopoly in the UK public sector following admissions from local authorities that they plan to increase their adoption of open-source software.
The inroads against the world’s largest software company emerge just as the UK government is set to promote open source to public bodies, championed by Linux, while the movement itself begins to mature.
In a survey of 100 local authorities for the Financial Times, over 60 per cent said they intended to step up their use of open source software, compared to just one per cent predicting a decline.
Cost reductions were cited as the key reason in favour of open source, meaning the switch to Linux is seen as an enabler to achieve efficiency savings spelled out by the Gershon Review.
Public sector managers also believe migrating to the open source movement – 42 per cent are planning to do so - will deliver the interoperability they need, while a lesser number cite the support and quality of the product.
Already converted managers meanwhile claim that Linux and its bedfellows are less vulnerable to virus attacks, while being able to retain similar functions as a Microsoft product.
|
|
#1 By
15406 (216.191.227.90)
at
5/10/2005 10:45:59 AM
|
#1: Yep, just listen to Bill G. He knows what's best for you. No need to think for yourself. Just smile and pay. Red China uses Windows and other MS tech, therefore it logically follows that if you use MS, you're Chinese. It makes about as much sense as your argument.
|
#2 By
23275 (68.17.42.38)
at
5/10/2005 8:04:26 PM
|
Ok - say it's not FUD and it's legit...
Cool. My advice to MS or any company...."Drive your own car..." and for the most part,
I assess MS does.
In any race, drive your race and your car - respond to any other driver/car and one is doomed to make whatever mistakes the other guys makes.
That said, and in this context, MS will likely see this for what it really is - a poor attempt to gain pricing advantages and a point or two in cost reduction. MS should stand firm, very firm and drive its own car by holding to existing pricing within each deal - much like FLP costs are negotiated per item, per customer with an applied discount that is unique to each SKU for each customer. Whatever they charged before, they ought to charge again.
If pricing is not to be respected, then MS should walk away - sell according to what you know the product is worth. I learned this the hard way - so I'm speaking from failure here, or rather recovering from it.
|
#3 By
9589 (68.17.52.2)
at
5/10/2005 8:41:56 PM
|
These Brits must have talked to the Munich municipal government who are STILL studying their move to Linux after more than two years! lol
Remember the *nix zealots plastering every tech media outlet with the Munich story for over a year and a half? Let's only hope this isn't a similiarly hyped story . . .
Original Munich "migration" story: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/developer/0,39020387,2135356,00.htm
New Munich "migration" story: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39195204,00.htm
Yeah, they are just breaking their necks over there in Germany to get that *nix on their desktops! lol Note, this latest article states that they will just get around to beginning the migration at the end of this year. Sheesh - what's the hold up?
|
#4 By
23275 (68.17.42.38)
at
5/11/2005 4:08:05 AM
|
#9 Here's why...
Software, even the best of it and I argue that Microsoft software is the best and the best platform is about 80% complete. The last 20% is where companies like Microsoft and even my own shop, make it or break it in business terms.
The real secret to Microsoft's software is their ability to hold firm on that 80% which is what they sell to integrators, ISV's, OEM's and companies like my own - within that gross revenue they make astonishing profits.
The last 20% is really what makes software and all the hardware and networks it runs on truly valuable to a company - regardless of size.
The same is true of governments - again, regardless of size.
Now in most cases, Microsoft leverages a strong partner base and we gutt out that last 20% -
and Microsoft spares itself a lot of real challenges that either do, or do not make customers happy. Pure genius on Microsoft's part and it can be made that what, too for those that figure out how to consistently deliver the final leg - profitably.
This is normally how it works. In some cases, Microsoft becomes the integrator, ISV, etc... and this is where they must stand firm on pricing. Pricing models have to be respected, because the really tough work to get and keep customers happy is where it really matters.
"this is the what you do with it....mentality" - and it's very tough.
Here too is why Microsoft beats all others - they have a real platform that guys like you and me may use to generate profitable revenue. Yes, there are other platforms, but they lack the end to end platform and tools and management integration Microsoft has developed and in the case of partners, gives away. Again, genius - grow by sharing - counting on the growth of others.
Within that last 20% is really where the fun can be - differentiation, unique personalization and where software will ultimately go...to personally relevant experiences that follow us through very complex days and lives.
OSS advocates "MUST" re-focus on this aspect - tools and management - make it possible for people to make a living on delivering the last 20%. They won't though because sharing requires a surplus and #8 is dead on! The very nature of collectivist economies prevents this and regretfully, that thinking has its stamp all over OSS. Ironic, Huh? - that Microsoft, by empowering its partners by sharing, solves the last 20% problem and transfers both its unpredictable costs and its widly moving revenue - something shareholders hate...where OSS doesn't really share at all and isn't at all open - not in the same sense, because it's too costly to use what is shared effectively. Linux distros illustrate this - they are about 5% of the 20% but are still well short of where companies, governments and certainly people want to be.
Proof? Microsoft makes more money selling its software to Darwin users, oops, I meant MAC users, than Apple does....again, profitable software, not gross revenue and that is all that really matters.
|
#5 By
23275 (68.17.42.38)
at
5/11/2005 3:36:28 PM
|
#12, No...
I mean, like all of us, when MS is in the last 20% space, they need to hold firm - they have to as we all do, or be eaten up by our own clients.
What they have done, is insulate themselves from that 20% and still make astonishing profits on their revenue within the first 80%.
In most cases they stay on one side - in the example, they are in both and both require a different approach.
OSS has to do the same, but cannot - not just yet in my opinion because trying to make a profit on OSS in the same space is way too painful and uncertain.
|
#6 By
32132 (206.116.136.250)
at
5/11/2005 7:59:37 PM
|
#10 "No one is forced by threats overt or covert to participate in OSS"
Au contraire. The fanatics at OSS headquarters recommend extortion as one method to get projects released as open source.
From the GNU FAQ:
Many universities nowadays try to raise funds by restricting the use of the knowledge and information they develop, in effect behaving little different from commercial businesses. (See "The Kept University", Atlantic Monthly, March 2000, for a general discussion of this problem and its effects.)
If you see any chance that your school might refuse to allow your program to be released as free software, it is best to raise the issue at the earliest possible stage. The closer the program is to working usefully, the more temptation the administration might feel to take it from you and finish it without you. At an earlier stage, you have more leverage.
So we recommend that you approach them when the program is only half-done, saying, "If you will agree to releasing this as free software, I will finish it." Don't think of this as a bluff. To prevail, you must have the courage to say, "My program will have liberty, or never be born."
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIfSchool
|
#7 By
23275 (68.17.42.38)
at
5/12/2005 8:37:05 AM
|
#19, as long as they use their own resources...fine, or if the risks are fully disclosed.
When one looks into the faces of people who count upon the buiness to perform to reward them with the necessary stability that is assured within a healthy company, then one's perspective changes.
Also, and really important, one may still engage in all sorts of new initiatives using tools and platform components that provide for "reasonable expectations for success" - new ideas are not restricted to those using *nix and related dev tools. In the end, it is what the technology does for people that matters most and not how it was achieved. If one can truly innovate, but do so more profitably, both responsibility and new initiatives may be served equally well.
|
|
|
|
|